チョン フン (チョン フン)

写真a

所属

政治経済学術院 政治経済学部

職名

准教授

ホームページ

http://hunchung.com

兼担 【 表示 / 非表示

  • 政治経済学術院   大学院政治学研究科

学歴 【 表示 / 非表示

  • 2012年06月
    -
    2017年12月

    University of Rochester   Department of Political Science   MA/Ph.D. in Political Science  

  • 2007年08月
    -
    2012年01月

    Cornell University   Sage School of Philosophy   MA/Ph.D. in Philsoophy  

  • 2000年03月
    -
    2006年08月

    Seoul National University   Department of Philosophy   BA in Philosophy (Summa Cum Laude)  

学位 【 表示 / 非表示

  • Seoul National University   B.A. in Philosophy (Summa Cum Laude)

  • Cornell University   M.A./Ph.D. in Philosophy

  • University of Rochester   M.A./Ph.D. in Political Science

経歴 【 表示 / 非表示

  • 2018年09月
    -
    継続中

    Waseda University   Faculty of Political Science and Economics   Associate Professor (tenure-track)

  • 2018年01月
    -
    2018年08月

    Korea Military Academy   Department of Philosophy   Assistant Professor (with tenure)

  • 2015年08月
    -
    2016年05月

    University of Arizona   Center for Philosophy of Freedom   Postdoctoral Fellow in Philosophy, Politics, & Economics

  • 2014年08月
    -
    2015年05月

    Rochester Institute of Technology   Department of Philosophy   Visiting Assistant Professor

  • 2011年08月
    -
    2012年05月

    Cornell University   Sage School of Philosophy   Instructor/Postdoctoral Visiting Scholar

 

研究分野 【 表示 / 非表示

  • 理論経済学

  • 哲学、倫理学

研究キーワード 【 表示 / 非表示

  • PPE (Philosophy, Politics, & Economics)

  • Formal Theory (Game/Social Choice Theory)

  • Political Philosophy

論文 【 表示 / 非表示

  • Book Reviews: Modern Social Contract Theory (by Albert Weale)

    チョン フン

    Journal of Economic Literature   59 ( 1 ) 285 - 287  2021年03月  [招待有り]

    DOI

  • Chain-Connection, Close-Knitness, and the Difference Principle

    チョン フン

    Journal of Politics    2021年  [査読有り]

    担当区分:筆頭著者, 最終著者

  • On Choosing the Difference Principle behind the Veil of Ignorance: A Reply to Gustafsson

    チョン フン

    The Journal of Philosophy    2021年  [査読有り]

    担当区分:筆頭著者, 最終著者, 責任著者

  • Rawls's Self-Defeat: A Formal Analysis

    チョン フン

    Erkenntnis   85 ( 5 ) 1169 - 1197  2020年10月  [査読有り]

    担当区分:筆頭著者, 最終著者, 責任著者

  • Diversity and rights: a social choice-theoretic analysis of the possibility of public reason

    チョン フン, ブライアン·コグルマン

    Synthese   197 ( 2 ) 839 - 865  2020年02月

    DOI

全件表示 >>

書籍等出版物 【 表示 / 非表示

  • How Economics Can Help Ethical Theorists

    チョン フン( 担当: 分担執筆,  担当範囲: Reading Ethics for the First Time)

    SNU Institute of Philosophical Research  2014年

受賞 【 表示 / 非表示

  • The 1st Mo-Ha Prize for Best Paper Written in Analytic Philosophy by a Korean Philosopher (for “Prospect Utilitarianism: A Better Alternative to Sufficientarianism” published in Philosophical Studies 174 (8), 1911-1933)

    2017年   The Korean Society for Analytic Philosophy  

    受賞者: チョン フン

特定課題研究 【 表示 / 非表示

  • A Formal Theory of Democratic Deliberation

    2018年   John Duggan

     概要を見る

    [Abstract of Research Paper] Inspired by impossibility theorems of social choice theory, many democratic theorists have argued that aggregative forms of democracy cannot lend full democratic justification for the collective decisions reached. Hence, democratic theorists have turned their attention to deliberative democracy, according to which “outcomes are democratically legitimate if and only if they could be the object of a free and reasoned agreement among equals.” (Cohen 1997a: 73) However, relatively little work has been done to offer a formal theory of democratic deliberation. This paper helps fill that gap by offering a formal theory of three different modes of democratic deliberation: myopic discussion, constructive discussion, and debate. In either form of discussion, positions are considered according to an exogenous protocol and arguments applied to them, whereas in a debate, two participants who have diametrically opposed preferences take turns and propose positions with supporting reasons/arguments. We show that myopic discussion suffers from indeterminacy of long run outcomes, while constructive discussion and debate are conclusive, i.e., both forms of deliberation converge to a position that is maximally justified according to at least one reason/argument. Finally, unlike the other two modes of deliberation, debate is path independent and converges to a unique compromise position, irrespective of the initial status quo.

 

現在担当している科目 【 表示 / 非表示

全件表示 >>